Founded in 1990 as the watchdog of the GMA, Futurewise has been the steward of smart local planning for over thirty years. One of our most powerful tools in shaping plans is our in-house legal department, which submits comment letters on plans as they are developed and brings appeals against plans that we feel are insufficient in meeting our community’s needs. In a typical, non-periodic update year, Futurewise works on 15-20 active legal appeals. For the next four years, we expect that work to triple as every county across the state works to update their comprehensive plan.
Ferry County’s journey to partial compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) has been marked by legal challenges, primarily led by Futurewise. The central issue has been the adequate designation of agricultural resource lands (ARL), a requirement even for counties partially planning under the GMA.
Futurewise’s advocacy has been pivotal in highlighting Ferry County’s repeated non-compliance. The 2015 Court of Appeals ruling, prompted by Futurewise’s challenge, overturned a previous finding of compliance, underscoring the importance of accurately designating ARLs. Similarly, Futurewise’s efforts led to the 2021 Court of Appeals decision that again found Ferry County non-compliant, emphasizing the need for revised regulations to meet GMA standards.
Recent developments, including a December 2023 Board ruling and Ferry County’s April 2024 ordinance, indicate progress but also raise concerns. While the county has addressed some compliance issues, Futurewise’s suggestions for a fixed date in the tax status criterion were not fully incorporated. The upcoming compliance deadline and hearing will determine whether Ferry County’s latest efforts have finally achieved GMA compliance.
In a significant land use dispute that has reached the State Supreme Court, Futurewise and Friends of the Sammamish Valley have challenged a 2019 King County Ordinance, which relaxed regulations for wineries, breweries, distilleries, and tasting rooms in agricultural and rural areas. The petitioners argue that the ordinance violates the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA).
FW argue the ordinance violates the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Growth Management Act (GMA) by not adequately considering potential environmental impacts like increased traffic, increased impervious surfaces and strain on septic systems, and potentially leading to incompatible uses in these areas.
The main legal issues revolve around the adequacy of King County’s environmental review under SEPA and the ordinance’s potential impacts on agricultural land, rural character, and local infrastructure. The Growth Management Hearings Board sided with the petitioners, finding that the ordinance did not adequately consider potential environmental impacts, such as increased impervious surfaces and strain on septic systems. The Board also found that the ordinance could lead to further development incompatible uses like large events in rural and agricultural zones, contrary to the GMA’s goals of conserving agricultural land and maintaining agricultural industries.
Futurewise further contends that the Court of Appeals, in overturning the Board’s decision, incorrectly interpreted SEPA’s baseline requirements for assessing such impacts. They argue the Court of Appeals should have adhered to a prior Supreme Court ruling, which established that the existing condition of the environment, not just the current land uses, is the appropriate baseline for evaluation
The Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for land use planning and environmental protection in King County. It will clarify SEPA’s baseline requirements, the level of detail needed in environmental impact assessments, and ultimately influence future land use decisions and the development of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in agricultural and rural areas.
Futurewise challenged Snohomish County’s 2022 ordinance expanding detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) in rural areas. Futurewise argued this violated the Growth Management Act (GMA) by threatening rural character, agricultural lands, and forest lands.
The Growth Management Hearings Board sided with Futurewise, finding the ordinance non-compliant and ordering revisions.
The Board agreed with Futurewise’s assessment and remanded the ordinance for compliance. However, Snohomish County’s subsequent revisions in 2023 raised further concerns for Futurewise. Snohomish County responded with a new ordinance in 2023, effectively reverting to earlier DADU regulations but like the 2022 ordinance it removed a requirement for DADUs to be located within 100 feet of the main residence. Futurewise contends that this change could lead to increased development pressures in rural areas. Despite these concerns, the Board found the 2023 ordinance to be compliant, stating it lacked authority to review matters related to earlier versions of the code.
Futurewise remains undeterred and has filed a Petition for Review in Thurston County Superior Court, arguing that the Board erred in its interpretation of the law. We contend that the Board’s decision sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing local governments to circumvent GMA regulations by strategically timing ordinance revisions. The outcome of this case will significantly impact future growth management decisions and the balance between local development and environmental protection in Washington State.
The case is expected to be briefed this summer, with a hearing anticipated later this year.
In January 2020, Futurewise challenged Thurston County’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan updates. Futurewise argued that the County’s revisions failed to comply with the state’s Growth Management Act, particularly in areas concerning agricultural land preservation, rural density planning, and capital facilities planning. The case, filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board, highlighted discrepancies in land designations, inadequate protections for rural areas and critical environments, and insufficient financial planning for essential infrastructure.
The legal proceedings have seen numerous extensions has to accommodate legislative changes and ongoing negotiations and efforts by county staff. While Thurston County staff continue to work on aligning their Comprehensive Plan with the Growth Management Act’s requirements, they have also initiated a community-driven review of agricultural policies and programs. This review involved collaborating with the Agriculture Advisory Committee to explore incentive programs, utilizing updated USDA data to refine agricultural designations within the Comprehensive Plan, and researching potential amendments to the criteria for Long-Term Agriculture designations. While Thurston County continues to revise its agricultural policies and programs, the case remains unresolved. Notably, the County’s transition to a five-person Board of Commissioners in 2022 may influence the eventual outcome.
The case remains ongoing, with the seventeenth settlement extension granted in March 2024 and the next status report due in June 2024. It is anticipated that the issues raised by Futurewise will be addressed as part of the County’s upcoming 2025 periodic update of their Comprehensive Plan.
